Chapter 9: CLI Phase II Recommendations

The recommendations presented below were suggested by CLI Stakeholders
present on the second day of the CLI Partner Task Force Meeting (September
24, 1998). These are the recommendations that the CLI (as represented
by the Partner and Task Force members present at the meeting) made to
the EPA. The EPA responded to the recommendations regarding which label
changes can currently (i.e., at the time this report was written) be made
at the April 1999 Partner and Task Force meeting. In addition, plans for
a CLI media event to take place in Spring 2000, plans of completion of
the Phase II Report, and plans for the Consumer Education Campaign were
also announced at the April meeting. A section describing the label changes
and the new developments for CLI follows the CLI recommendations.

Prior to the Partner and Task Force meeting, Susan Wayland, Deputy Assistant
Administrator for the EPA's Office of Prevention, Pesticides, and Toxic
Substances, had asked Stakeholders to consider the following items when
making recommendations:

identify what product label changes can be implemented immediately,
and the options and associated tradeoffs;

identify any needs for further research, the options and associated
tradeoffs, and anticipated end points for making label changes; and

identify any needed policy choices, and the possible options
and associated tradeoffs for each choice.

Topics for discussion during the meeting included the following:

signal words and hazard hierarchy,

ingredients,

label format,

consumer education, and

storage and disposal.

For each of these discussion topics, the Partner and Task Force members
attempted to address each of the items identified above. In many cases,
the issue of Consumer Education overlapped with the discussion topics,
and was considered as a stand alone topic in others. Information or recommendations
regarding consumer education are therefore captured both by discussion
topic and under the Consumer Education topic area.

Signal Words and Hazard Hierarchy Recommendations

Product Label Changes Product Label Changes

1. For products that fall into toxicity categories 1,
2, or 3, recommend that manufacturers be encouraged to voluntarily put
one or more bullet points underneath the signal word on the front label,
explaining the precautions associated with the product. The statement
which currently refers people to turn to the back of the package for more
explanation of the precautions should remain on the front of the label.

Further Research Further Research

1. Recommend that additional research be conducted on
the effects of "highlighting" and graphical depictions of the signal
words on the front of the label before any such changes are implemented.
("Highlighting" means things such as bolding the word, boxing the
word, using colors to make the word stand out, making the word bigger,
etc.; graphical depictions could include bar graphs, thermometers, "laugh
meters," or similar designs incorporating all three words into a hierarchical
visual format.) Also explore as a part of this research "information
fragmentation" (i.e., placing precautionary-related information on both
the front and back label panels) issues. Note on intent: the need for
this research is not intended to preclude the change recommended pertaining
to placing the precaution bullet on the front panel with the signal word.

Policy Choices

1. For toxicity category 4 products only, the EPA should
consider not having a signal word. (Currently, both category 3 and category
4 products can have the signal word "Caution" associated with them.)

2. The EPA should determine what the consumer should
understand about signal words and the hazard hierarchy. If the intent
is for the signal words to flag for the consumer that care should be taken,
then the recommendations here are enough along with appropriate educational
efforts (see education recommendations). If the intent is for the hazard
hierarchy to be understood, then additional research and education are
necessary.

Consumer Education

1. Recommend that an effort be made to educate consumers
about the meaning of the signal words, and how they are defined and used
on labels. This should be done in a factual context, and without judgment
calls which conclude the meaning for the consumer (i.e., the Agency should
not recommend that consumers always buy products marked CAUTION in preference
to products marked DANGER).

Ingredients Recommendations

Product Label Changes

1. Recommend that the EPA not make any across-the-board
label changes for ingredients at the present time.

2. Recommend that the EPA allow manufacturers the flexibility
to voluntarily provide "other ingredient" information on the label
in a way that consumers in the study expressed they wanted (i.e., listed
by category, perhaps with some explanation of purpose).

3. Recommend that the EPA allow manufacturers more flexibility
in where they provide ingredient information (e.g., back panel versus
front panel).

Further Research

1. Recommend that the EPA conduct further research to
identify how to supply consumers' expressed need for medical information
to people who want it. It was noted that information learned from the
quantitative research of Phase II should be incorporated in any further
research.

Policy Choices

1. Recommend that the EPA further examine how to provide
ingredient information on the label in the way consumers expressed they
want it, as indicated by the research (i.e., give them categories of ingredients
along with the purpose.) Also, refer to research recommendations in the
format section.

Consumer Education

1. Educate consumers about ingredient information on
labels (i.e., why they appear on the label and the meaning of "active"
and "other"), through the "Read the Label FIRST!" campaign.
Additionally, it was suggested that the education campaign be utilized
to inform the public about where to get health and safety information,
e.g., for people prone to allergies, etc.

Label Format Recommendations

Product Label Changes

1. Recommend that statements that were clearly preferred
by consumers in the quantitative research be used, as appropriate, and
that the EPA make program changes to allow this to happen to the extent
possible.

Directions for Use

2. Recommend that the EPA consider replacing the statement,
"It is a violation of Federal law to use this product in a manner
inconsistent with its labeling," with the simpler phrase tested on the
quantitative survey - "Use only as directed on this label."

3. Recommend that manufacturers voluntarily put
direction for use in bulleted form with no wrapping text (i.e., making
sure that each new direction for use is set off on a separate line, and
does not continue on the same line), using ordinal numbers if sequence
is important.

5. Recommend that manufacturers and the EPA, where possible,
use simple language, avoiding jargon; avoid wrapped text; keep sections
together in same column; use more white space; and eliminate needless
words. This recommendation was particularly expressed with regard to precautionary
statements.

6. Recommend that the EPA remove language that is not
appropriate to consumers from precautionary statements, e.g., language
more appropriate for agricultural pesticides, etc.

Precautionary Statements--First Aid Specific

7. Recommend that manufacturers voluntarily put
First Aid information in a table format and within a box.

8. Recommend that manufacturers who provide a toll-free
number for emergencies voluntarily include that number beneath or within
any table/box that includes First Aid information.

Further Research

1. Recommend that further research be structured to
investigate location and presentation of ingredient information (e.g.,
placing ingredient information on the front or back of the label, tabular
formats, etc.), before any across-the-board changes are made to ingredients
information. This recommendation addresses the variation in need which
can arise between product categories, e.g., indoor and outdoor versus
cleaner product labels.

2. Recommend that further research be conducted to investigate
how the information hierarchy (i.e., information that consumers in the
quantitative research said was most important to them) translates into
the order in which information appears on labels.

Policy Choices

1. Given the efforts in other non-CLI forums to standardize
the use of icons, further work on this topic should not be pursued as
a part of the CLI.

Consumer Education

1. Recommend that the "Read the Label FIRST!"
campaign educate consumers that it is acceptable for them to open and
read label booklets (particularly for outdoor pesticide products) in the
store.

Consumer Education and "Read the Label FIRST!" Recommendations

It was noted that the Consumer Education Subgroup will address any recommendations
from other topic areas related to Consumer Education.

1. Educate consumers on what specific parts of the label
mean or are intended to communicate; specifically, signal words, active
and other ingredients, storage and disposal, and precautionary statements
including First Aid.

2. As the CLI project continues, expand membership of
the Consumer Education Subgroup to include brand managers, marketing staff,
and label designers from within the Partner companies, particularly with
respect to designing and assessing the impact of the logo for the Read
the Label FIRST! campaign.

3. Recommend that messages conveyed through the consumer
education campaign be market-tested in appropriate ways before they are
launched.

4. Recommend that retailers be brought into the Consumer
Education Subgroup, as they will be important for distributing the messages
developed by the group.

Storage and Disposal Recommendations

Phase II Follow Up

1. Recommend that the EPA send information from the
quantitative study about recycling symbols (those with chasing arrows)
to relevant organizations.

2. Recommend the EPA gather any available information
on risk assessments regarding product disposal from states, manufacturers,
and other appropriate organizations and share this information with all
applicable parties, in an effort to coordinate these types of studies.

3. Recommend that the quantitative data on disposal
practices be sent to the North American Hazardous Materials Management
Association (NAHMMA) and that NAHMMA be encouraged to share this information
with its members.

Product Label Changes

1. Recommend that for empty containers, the statement
on product labels read, "Place in trash. Recycle where available." The
recycling statement would be optional for manufacturers. Also optional,
manufacturers may use the statement that reads: "Do not re-use container."

2. Recommend that, given that there was no agreement
on label statements for partially filled containers, there be a delay
in any Pesticide Registration (PR) notice regarding the disposal
statement on empty containers until the EPA makes a policy decision about
how to handle partially filled containers.

3. Recommend to keep the status quo for storage statements
on product labels.

During the April 7-8, 1999, Partner and Task Force meeting, the EPA discussed
how it intended to address the recommendations made during the September
1998 Partner and Task Force meeting. The EPAs Office of Pesticide
Programs (OPP) is handling the recommendations for label changes, and
it presented a draft strategy for dealing with those recommendations at
the April 1999 meeting. Also at the meeting, planning was initiated for
a CLI media event in Spring 2000, to announce the CLI recommendations;
and updates on both the completion of the Phase II Report and the Consumer
Education Campaign activities were presented.

Draft OPP Strategy for Implementation of the Phase II Label Changes

OPPs draft strategy for implementing some of the CLI recommendations,
presented in the April 1999 Partner and Task Force meeting, includes the
following:

1. OPP will circulate an internal
guidance memorandum to forewarn EPA product managers about the type of paperwork
to expect coming from companies making label changes recommended by the
CLI. The memo would cover label changes that can be approved now, changes
that would be considered on a case-by-case basis, and changes that would
not be considered at present. These draft changes are listed below.

2. Revised First Aid statements
have been agreed upon and a draft Pesticide Registration (PR) notice
announcing these new statements is currently being reviewed by EPA staff.
The PR notice is expected to be issued in Fall/Winter 1999.

3. PR notices for all recommendation
topics will be issued after the guidance memo. Some PR notices may be issued
as "final" notices without a time period allotted for public comment,
while others will be issued "for comment."

4. Label changes will apply to
all FIFRA regulated pesticide products, not just consumer pesticides and
household cleaners.

5. Sometime in the future, the
PR notices will be incorporated into EPA regulation, where necessary.

Label Changes That Can be Submitted Now

While manufacturers must abide by current regulations, they can submit
the following label changes to the OPP (see Appendices 3-3 to 3-6 for
examples of some of these label changes):

adding hazard bullet points under signal words;

removing inappropriate language on consumer labels;

providing information on "other ingredients" in a variety of
ways; and

presenting first aid information in simplified formats, including
a toll-free number, and using the new revised First Aid statements.

Changes to the overall label format and presentation that can currently
be made include:

use of preferred statements;

use of simpler language and less jargon;

use of revised hazard and use statements;

use of bullet formats;

avoidance of narrative text formats (e.g., using bullets and headings);

keeping sections together in the same column;

using white space;

eliminating needless words, while still abiding by current regulations;

adding numbers for sequential actions;

use of tables;

adding sub-heading into the Directions for Use section; and

rearranging precautionary statements to give prominence to those of
greater interest.

Label Changes That Need to be Discussed with EPA Product Managers
Before Submitting

changing the location of the ingredients statement.

Label Changes That Cannot be Submitted at Present Time

changing, combining, or deleting headings;

locating storage and disposal instructions outside of the Directions
for Use section;

revising the Federal misuse statement; and

leaving off the signal word for products in toxicity category 4.

CLI Media Event

During the April 1999 Partner and Task Force meeting, the EPA informed
CLI Stakeholders about plans for an upcoming media event, to announce
some of the labeling recommendations that EPA will be making as a result
of the CLI. Plans for the media event were postponed until Spring 2000,
however, to coincide with the 'kick-off' of the CLI Consumer Education
Campaign; the media event will serve as the 'kick-off' event for the "Read
the label FIRST!" Campaign. This launch is timed to coincide the
appearance of newly redesigned labels on store shelves with consumers'
general interest in seasonal gardening and cleaning activities. Eventually,
the Consumer Education Subgroup intends to finalize and make available
to the public a variety of educational materials (e.g., brochures, pamphlets,
etc.).

6. The goals of the media event
are to announce to the public CLI's accomplishments, inform the public
that labels are changing to become simpler, promote the "Read the
Label FIRST!" campaign, promote the CLI partnership between EPA
and its Stakeholders, and increase consumer awareness in general regarding
product labels.

7. The media event is scheduled
for Spring 2000. It was proposed at the April 1999 meeting that because
the event serves as a way in which to reach the general public, a well-known
public figure may be appropriate to convey the messages of the event,
in addition to the EPA and CLI Partners.

8. The target audience for
the media event is the general public, the trade press, community newspapers,
and lifestyle magazines.

9. Messages for the event will
be drafted by EPA and circulated to CLI Partners and other Stakeholders
prior to the event.

Completion of the Phase II Report

An update on the Phase II Report and details for its completion were
presented to CLI Partner and Task Force members during the April 1999
meeting. Partners and Task Force members were informed that all of EPA's
recommendations on label changes, as a result of CLI, will be included
in the Report. Partner and Task Force members agreed that displaying the
Phase II findings on the Internet before the completion of the Report
would be counterproductive and, therefore, resources should be spent on
completion of the Report.

Consumer Education Campaign

An update of the activities since the September 1998 Partner and Task
Force meeting regarding the Consumer Education Campaign was presented
during the April 1999 meeting.

10. Upon recommendation from the September Partner
and Task Force meeting, the Consumer Education Subgroup had been expanded
to include marketing, brand, outreach, and public relations experts.

11. A message development group was formed to develop
the messages for the "Read the Label FIRST!" campaign, for
use in both outreach fliers and/or brochures.

12. A message placement group was also formed to identify
and implement the most appropriate avenues for distributing the messages
and products for the Consumer Education Campaign in order to promote the
"Read the Label FIRST!" campaign.

13. Ideas for generating a unique logo for the "Read
the Label FIRST!" campaign were shared during the April 1999 Partner
and Task Force meeting. Logo design concepts included the idea of a design
competition or contracting with a graphic designer to produce the logo.
The goal would be to have a logo in place that companies and other CLI
participants could use on products, in advertising, and on education materials
in time for the Spring 2000 promotion period.